Mohsen v. Moss et al

Filing 59

CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 58 . Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 57 Motion for an Order to Preserve Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 03/05/2013. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/6/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ig, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
AMR MOHSEN,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER TO PRESERVE
DOCUMENTS

JOEL MOSS, et al.,

15

No. C-09-01426 CRB (DMR)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

16
17

On February 8, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Amr Mohsen filed an Expedited Motion for a Court

18

Order to the Liquidators of Howrey Simon to Preserve Documents. [Docket No. 55 (“motion for an

19

order to preserve documents”).] In his motion, Plaintiff sought an order to preserve certain

20

documents directed to the liquidator of Howrey Simon, the law firm that represented Plaintiff’s

21

former company in the civil actions. Howrey Simon has dissolved, and another firm, Diamond

22

McCarthy, LLP, is handling its files in bankruptcy. The documents at issue are those covered by

23

protective orders in the civil actions Aptix Corp., et al v. Quickturn Design Systems, No. C-98-

24

00762-WHA and Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, No. C-96-20909-JF.

25

On February 14, 2013, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve documents

26

without prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff had not submitted competent evidence regarding the

27

location of the documents at issue and whether they were in imminent danger of destruction.

28

[Docket No. 56.] On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff submitted the declaration of attorney Mark

1

Zilversmit, in which Mr. Zilversmit states that he has been in contact with the Howrey Simon

2

“wind-down team” regarding the documents at issue. [Docket No. 57 (Decl. of Zilversmit, Feb. 21,

3

2013).] According to Mr. Zilversmit, Diamond McCarthy, LLP is in possession of the documents

4

and intends to start destroying the files “sometime between March 15 and April 15, 2013” absent a

5

court order preventing their destruction. (Decl. of Zilversmit, ¶ 5.)

6

In light of these facts, it appears that documents potentially relevant to this matter are in

7

imminent danger of destruction. The court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion and issue an order

8

directing Diamond McCarthy, LLP to take all necessary steps to preserve the documents covered by

9

the protective orders in Aptix Corp., et al v. Quickturn Design Systems, No. C-98-00762-WHA and

11

Diamond McCarthy, LLP an opportunity to object to its issuing such an order. Any objections shall

12

be filed by no later than March 22, 2013. Diamond McCarthy, LLP shall not destroy any of the

13

documents in question pending the court’s ruling on any objections.

file a proof of service.

S

16

18
19

Dated: March 6, 2013

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

. Ryu

NO

aM
DONNA JudRYU onn
M. ge D

20

RT

21

United States Magistrate Judge

ER

H

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

R NIA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FO

17

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

LI

15

Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of this order on Diamond McCarthy, LLP and

A

14

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, No. C-96-20909-JF. However, the court will allow

RT
U
O

United States District Court

10

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C